Intel UHD Graphics 630 vs NVIDIA Quadro K2000

Comparative analysis of Intel UHD Graphics 630 and NVIDIA Quadro K2000 videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory, Technologies. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, Geekbench - OpenCL, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score.

 

Differences

Reasons to consider the Intel UHD Graphics 630

• Videocard is newer: launch date 4 year(s) 6 month(s) later
• A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 14 nm vs 28 nm
• 3.4x lower typical power consumption: 15 Watt vs 51 Watt
• Around 15% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 4671 vs 4071
• Around 95% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 27.89 vs 14.332
• Around 28% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 340.911 vs 265.424
• Around 63% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 1.785 vs 1.093
• Around 36% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 20.414 vs 15.009
• Around 68% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3309 vs 1974
• Around 68% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3309 vs 1974

Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro K2000

• 2.7x more core clock speed: 954 MHz vs 350 MHz
• Around 6% higher texture fill rate: 30.53 GTexel / s vs 28.8 GTexel / s
• 16x more pipelines: 384 vs 24
• Around 59% better floating-point performance: 732.7 gflops vs 460.8 gflops
• Around 27% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 1577 vs 1243
• Around 26% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 382 vs 302
• Around 29% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 38.219 vs 29.514
• Around 31% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 2446 vs 1870
• Around 2% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 1631 vs 1596
• Around 31% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 2446 vs 1870
• Around 2% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 1631 vs 1596

Compare benchmarks

GPU 1: Intel UHD Graphics 630
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro K2000

PassMark - G3D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	1243 1577
PassMark - G2D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	302 382
Geekbench - OpenCL	GPU 1 GPU 2	4671 4071
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	27.89 14.332
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	340.911 265.424
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1.785 1.093
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	20.414 15.009
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	29.514 38.219
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1870 2446
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1596 1631
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3309 1974
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1870 2446
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1596 1631
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3309 1974

Compare specifications (specs)